Senator Alexander you have a sort thriller suggest you lift it, the senate have you all for that deal oftenly have current thank you for being here today our pledges are Savanna Stricon from the Alaps sponsored by senator Page, Judge career from Cornelius sponsored by senator Tod, Ryner Bulger from Sholy sponsored by senator Richard, Cavity Baker from North Wooks spell, senator Rodigan very poor from [xx] sponsored by me, Grek Keys from Everton sponsored by senator Lee, Adam Faltom from [xx] Georgia sponsored bey senator Robinson, and then Rob Bruke from Rowly sponsored by senator Alexander and going to talk to be here today and to see what seantor Age is all about and for you will have a lot of fun. The fast period we have on up to day is senate bill 647 amend coming along. Senator Jackson can you run this bill? Oh senator [xx], there is a PCS senator Jackson move for adoption of the PCS all those in favor will say aye, opposed no, the ayes have it Senator [xx] the floor is yours. Thank you Mr. President Senator Tucker for a motion Motion to approve the adopted PCS on favorable to the original [xx] ask any question from the committee, any comment from the audience? Senator Tucker moves adoption of the PCS on favorable Senator Raben I'm sorry I have my hand, yes two things one I would like to may have to hold that of the piping provision which is new to me and I haven't heard next bill There is a bill Okey, I don't have any problem ahead of the game he is doing well. Senator Tucker move the adoption of the PCS, move for favorable report to the PCS on favorable to the original all those in favor will say aye, Aye! Oppose no, ayes have it Good buyer [xx]. So have to make it for the floor, House Bill 44 cities have grown vegetation notice, there is is a PCS senator Toca moves for adoption of the PCS all those in favour will say aye, Aye! Oppose no, Senator Wail. Mr. Chairman if we can start with letting staff go through the bill that might be the way to start the session by section. He has some amendment she wants those to be passed on now or after going for the bill? We can do the amendments first of you like and then should go through the bill. OK Senator Well has They might not understand the amendments if we don't go through the bill first, those who may we should go through the bill first Okay, we'll go through the bill first yeah welcome there you are. Thank you, section one of the bill would consolidate the city's circuits on public nuisance ordinance notice and over grown vegetation ordinance notice to cronic violators section two would prohibit cities and counties from requiring any persons, group or entity to which regulation rule of all oppose that is voluntary what it will affect or held in a [xx] from complying with that rule of regulation for some other reason. Section three on page two would say that if a development lies in we in the county apparently in the city and more than 50% of it is in the county, the owner of the development will get to choose whose ordinances would apply to the entire development tract, section four on page three will specify that [xx] displaying [xx] when effects to perimeter fencing are not regulated by counties or cities on a construction site prior to the issue [xx] certificate of occupancy. Section five would apply the
permanent choice given to areas of development currently with any state local or state county or city ordinance would apply those specifically [xx] permit section six would modernize and update the pre audit [xx] statute that are contained the local government budget and fiscal control act and applicable to counties, cities and public authorities. Section seven would specify that a majority vote the board of transportation is needed to reduce the number of travelling in the state, section eight on page seven will say that a city county or other political subdivision could not regulate fewer than five bee hives by any particular person or entity section seven would rewrite the statute governing leases by counties and cities and a handful of other local subdivisions. It would increase the notice that has to be given prior to entering into a lease from 10 days to 30 and it would also authorize leases for self towers, and the leases for self towers could be a term of up to 25 years so 10 will specify that when Department of Health and Human Services approves a prototype plan for a franchise food establishment. The local health food department cannot make any requirement for any change to that prototype plan, it could be used anywhere in the state section 11 of the bottom of page eight over to bottom page nine would allow for opening fair competition for the construction of any water, or waste water, or storm water drainage project. Section12 will require county or city to give notice to all adjacent properties the owners, and property owner prior to any commitment of any construction project, section 13 would modify the reparian perform in section 14 and section 15 are also caught up in that and I'm going to confess I don't know a whole about it, but Mr. Hudson knows everything about it. Section 16 would require a zoning ordinates to provide for density credits that are fore several board development rights, for dedicated rights of way section 17 would specify that a county or city building inspector would be able to rely upon a licensed survey, an architect or an engineer that does a field inspection on the installation of any piece of construction without having to further inspect that particular piece of construction. It does require a written signed document to be given to the county or state building inspection department. Section 18 would specify that in their land use planning counties and cities and could not adopt the definition of bedroom or sleeping unit or dwelling unit that's more expensive than the same definition in another statue at the stage level. Section 19 would rewrite the authority for development agreements by counties and cities currently they're limited to either brownfields area or acreage of 25 acres or more in one development property the re-write would be that development property under a development agreement could be of any size including the brown fields and the development agreement instead of being limited to 25 years could be sub-limited to 20 years could be of a reasonable term as specified in the agreements, and I believe that's all. Chair for appeal take over the sections set effective, skipped over on the base of 13, 14, and 15. Sir thank you Mr Chairman, so these provisions are back starting on the bottom of page 9 under repairing buffer form. Section 13 creates a grand father from the news Buffer Rule and the Topham Buffer Rule, it basically provides that if private property was planned and recorded in the in the registrar of deeds prior to August 1 2000 if the Buffer Rules wouldn't apply to that property and section 14 provides how measurement for repairing buffers from coastal wetlands and marshlands would occur and basically provides that coastal wetlands and marshlands won't be treated as part of the surface waters, but will be treated as part of the protected riparian buffer instead. Senator Way[sp?] would you want to bring your amendments now? Yes Sir please, I think system handed out Mr Chairman. Okay.
And if we could let staff go over the two amendments, you haven't gotten them yet. Take care of Senator Jackson, Senator Alexander and okay, which one did you want to run first? The the first amendment Senator Wade[sp??] send forth is [xx] H44AST87 Version 2, Senator Waide. I like for staff to go over it first, please the amendment would add a new section to the bill that would say that there is a local maintenance of effort that is required by local health department in order to be eligible for certain grants by the state health department and this would repeal all that maintenance would ever be standard. Senator Wade. This occurred actually in several counties that they were holding a, my county particularly is holding three million dollars, and they asked us to take a look that they might, they'll be holding at, actually this was put in place by senator Hudson and he and I are still talking on this particular keep it one, and you may see another amendment on the floor or before the date of 2016 in January, to maybe put a cap on say a million dollars, but some counties are having to hold as much as $3 million, and basically we understand it in scroll account and they think they can't use that money, and they think they could be more efficient if they could use the money and maybe on the low cap. Any questions from the committee? Any comments from the audience? Senator Blake since worth the amendment all those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no, ayes have it, next amendment is H44AST 74 version 2. Mr. Well drilling changes I'd like for staff to address the first please. OK. The moment does two separate things the first is I believe back in 2013 and 2014 there was a change use image to the world record contracting licence procedure to allow them to actually do electrical work between the port and the switch, if I understood that correctly, this would be a conforming change to simply say that when the waoldrer[sp] will get promiet[sp] to today the well that promiet[sp] also includes the promiet to in indeed that electrical work, it will be after the work on how the promiet is issuing the promiet for the well to notify the Weko building and destruction of environment that promiet[sp] has been bold and the second thing that the managers is everyone in page two lines 31 to 34 to so say that at the time of the application and all prior-to be issueing the promiet[sp] for award if a local government is going to require connection to a public water system, you know the property has to be notified before the promiet[sp] is issued this also, which one? This one. This also was brought for by a local waldrer[sp] look and he was I easy quickly concern, what's happening is a week something happens to you pop and where do you really concern text is your promt, first I'm going to start with non alliance electricity that is why is in the alliance session we change to see that [xx] so that would be electrical look from the well to the house and just one little bit, so you can start your well back up again, if it happens on a weekend you can [xx] how I look at it. So, what's been happening is they fix it, they get your pump running on the weekend or when it happens, the inspector who doesn't come out, they cover it up. Two weeks later the inspector shows up they have to come back out, dig the line up where they've run the electrical equipment let the electrical inspector go out and take a look at it. This is just saying that within a period of time that you need to get out there and check it the well driller can cover the ground back up. It's pretty straight forward and simple. Senator Brigham Mr. Chair, with a very common sense amendment and I move for approval. Any other questions or comments? Senator Tucker Senator Wayne, where's the electrical board on all this. They've already agreed that this is well and good, and that let the well drillers. I know we passed it last time and now on this next sequence
they're all fine with not having an electrician run the line all that. I haven't heard anything from electrical OK, thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Any comments from the audience? Senator Wade sent's forth amendment, all those in favor will say aye? Aye. Oppose No? Ayes have it. Any other amendment? Senator Alexander sent's forth an amendment This is amendment is being passed up now H44ASB 56 version one Mr. Chairman Yes We are going to deal with the amendment now or do we get back to the PCS and ask questions if we have questions? Those are a whole bunch of amendments someone tried to get through all the amendments put all together then ask questions on the whole bill. Senator Alexander, I think you want staff to talk for If possible. I'll make that motion for the [xx] through the rest of the end of session till we adjourn senator all those in favor, Jeffery Thank you Mr. Chair so this is the amendment back on the news and Topham Buffer Rule Grandfather, say as I mentioned before the PCS creates a grandfather they are from a properties that have being plotted and recorded prior to obvious one 2000 Senator Alexander amendment would say that, that particular new grandfather provision doesn't apply to the Upper News River Basin which is a potion of the Upper News River Basin that basically stretches from the top of the river basin about a third of the way down. Question or comments? Senator Jackson you're proxy, Senator Jackson. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious why Senator Alexander. What I'm trying to do is to keep the files lake clean and with your [xx] they could be above there up stream that could have some of this latitude to allow them to do a lot work construction that way than we'd like to help the false lake rules. Any question Senator Wayne. Senator Alexander discussed this and we've agreed on this amendment at this time. Senator Bingham. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Alexander do you know of any objection, have you heard any objection or seen a wave concerning this? No I have not. Any other questions from the committee? Any other comments from the audience? Senator Alexander sends forth his amendment, all those in favor favor will say hi? hi Opposed no? No Hi's have it. Senator Cook, has your amendment been passed out? Yes amendment should be on your tables. So it hasn't been passed out yet? This will be H4488 30 version 3. maybe I'll let staff read the amendment. OK, OK, Erica. the amendment would authorize cities to regulate an inhabitable structures within their public trust areas. It would require that the owner be notified at least 120 days before the city took any action. I might add in 2013 the General Assembly authorized cities to adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit replacement maintenance location or use of equipment personal property or debris on the state's oceans beast beaches. This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the municipality be required to send a notice to the owner of an inhabitable structure, which has been without water or sewer services for more than 120 days, and this language comes from the House Bill H591 and that bill was passed unanimously in the
house, I ask for your support. I might also point out I put some copies of pictures Of a situation in exact which is about six sizes under water that are inhabitable and are about to fall down and the fetch will leave like that till they do fall down, which is a hazard to everybody out there. This is, something needs to be fixed. I appreciate your support. Senator Wade Senator Krueger and I have discussed this and we're on agreement on the amendment. Questions for comment from the committee Senator Smith Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just want to be sure seeing these property offers maybe they should be taken care of them referential treatment. I don't believe you are should cover this houses and to fall apart and clarification that you make sure you are properly for that that only speeds up the process basically as it is now it takes for ever to get this houses removed. This will move it along make it little more reasonable situation. I've heard several people on the outer banks tell me because happens from time to time some big strong come in and just wipe out an area, the beach or a road and you all get water underneath the house slashing around, and yet the owner won't tear it down because his wait forward to pull down, and it's just a bad situation we need to fix it. OK, follow up. Follow up. So from the current process now just beat it up by 120 days. I don't know how many days but at least it put a time limit on it, I don't know how long these houses can stand. I imagined they can stand for quite a while maybe several months. Many months, I don't know but they are on inevitable and may fall down at any point. This it says 120 days we've got to do something. Let's follow up. Follow up. okay just the clarification they will stand to help me out but if a home doesn't have water and sewage is it condemned? Not necessarily the condemnation process is one that is fed on statue they require certain things to be made then the other give him an opportunity to correct those items then if you don't collect them then it is condemned and then after condemnation the city or the county can walk with and they can either require to be repaired or they can tear it down. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Bingham, hold on. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious if the person senator Curt does not remove these property, what would you do, what's the consequences of these related some type of restriction or charge him, or take over the property, what will happen? I'm not clear exactly what happened to my guest as they would eventually have to tear the property down themselves, however let me refer part of the staff. Senator Bingham I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're trying to ask. Okay, the question is if the person say for example this would probably be a rather an expensive process to remove this property off the beach and if they did not and a city decided to move ahead, what would their consequences be, would they just put some type of, I guess send it, send someone to remove it and then can send in the bill they didn't pay for it to take their property kind of the nature will happen in this process? I think generally the enforcement process for local ordinances will allow for the courtier city if someone if they were told that you can not build here and someone actually build there, they could get a court order to enforce the building to stop and then the court would be involved in determining what happens from there. But I'm Mr. Chairman, Follow up, I'm not referring to the new construction I'm talking about the existing home. It's about to be consumed by the ocean what happens if they don't remove this home? And there's a notice that has to be done in 220 days or whatever that
process is and they are unable to say afford to have that done. What happens? I'm just. Sir at some point I believe we are actually talking about the condemnation process which it does allow for the property do be torn down and removed from the real property and that would again the cost of that would be taxed aganist the real property if they were any left I think part of the problem here in Senator Cooks scenario is that the real property has been consumed by the ocean. Okay thank you Mr. Chairman I move for a favor report on this amendment, Okay Senator Tucker Okay he's good, any other question for comments, comment from the audience, kicks forth an amendment all those in favor will say I, I!, oppose no, the I's have it. Any more amendments? Alright lets start on the bills Senator Tucker couple things I guess for staff if I may Senator Wade Mr. Churchill on this response build here roads I don't see anything in there we have a number of towns municipalities in my county as you are all aware of that do not provide any services and harb no, road maintenance e. T. C, but we are having problems with the state denying taking over additional sub divisions to maintain street maintenance for this town so we have a major council government no police department no water sewerage all handled by the county, does this impact that at all? No sir I don't think there is any provision in the bill that will address that. Okay go on. Senator White. Senator Tacker are you refering to section seven? Yes I am. That's to do with state money which is already been spent to may be make or put in a four lane road or six lane road and the locals come back and say they are going to designate two of those lanes for another use, and we take as we can't reform the transportation board before they do that. Okay thank you. Follow up. Follow up. Another one just the last question you know there have been some concern about the piping issues, and I think that or the piping materials that will be allowed to repair, or complete or, speck[sp?] on a project or whatever the polyichrolid[sp?] is excluded from that as in my understanding from the inspection engineers or architect, is that the case in what this bill do as far as I'm concerned? Senator wake. Senator Wake. Senator Tucker it is my understanding that there is some local rules that are out there that do not allow for PVC pipe to be used, and they are old rules and they're from long time ago. And I think, in fact Senator Sanderson, if you want to come up here I know this was in your bill, but my understanding is they're just trying to get us to say that they can be looked at, and if the engineer decides that that material, the PVC pipe can be used, and is appropriate they could be considered. Right now some the ordinance say you can just use metal piping, and as we all know if is for water lines, what they fix those with after they do rust through it will get damaged as PVC pipes, so they just want to be considered in the beginning it's my understanding is that the way I understand? Follow up Senator Tucker. Well, just a follow up question you got pushed back from AGC, you got pushed back from [xx] municipalities pushed back from market tech engineers, just to include a product in respect doesn't seem like a big deal to me, what's if you or Senator Sam[sp?] are getting the answers inviting audiences can speak to that and often reflect on why they want to do that. Senator Tucker, we have a whole list of people who want to speak on that so [xx] I'll defer. Well let the speaker speak and they will then answer those questions. Senator Rabin is that, I know you had a question on. Yes, my comment and question is on piping also, and I'd like to give it an arm on the right bill now. Yes sir, you're right on time yes. Clear about that, but on this section I do have some personal feelings about that. First is that we're using, we're saying that a licence professional shall consider all possibilities or that's what license professionals do without law, and by the same token I think they were overreaching our bounds
as legislators by telling a professional engineer or a professional anyone what he or she shall or shall not do or shall or shall not consider, no different than when we used aid funds no different than my [xx] dog or a cat on a voucher from Brunswick County and the legislature telling me, that I shall consider you using Catgut and pro lean, and some other suture material. I shall consider using what I think is best to spay that animal and all that tissue together and that is under the pro-view of my license and under my professional abilities and that's why I think we we're going a little too far when we're telling her you have to look at this, you have to look at that, you have to look at the other, a professional looks at everything generally before they even start. Senator Wake. Senator Raven I think the problem is, and I agree with you on everything you said except let's say a local government may [xx] you can't use [xx] so that takes that possibility even if you think it's the best think to use away from you. And that's what the problem is, they don't even get in the mix to start out with. Another local government has already told them they can't use it. Ok, senator [xx] Yes, I have a question about section 10 regarding a health department so let's take for example a health department in North Hamton County has approved one of these food facilities, a prototype franchise and so just to make sure that I'm clear maybe you can answer this yourself, let's say the neighboring county of Hartford would like to do the same so their local health department doesn't have any say so in it. They can go off of the recommendation from North Hmpton [xx] My understanding is [xx] franchise like [xx] the state has approved that has one particular prototype that's okay to use so if you're using that prototype is approved from where you use it in North Carolina. It's my understanding and staff do you have anything to add, is that correct? Yes mum, is [xx] each department of of health approves the prototype plain that it is acceptable for use in every county if one county approves something else it is not necessary accepted about the next counting any question or comment from the committee? From the audience we have three people willing to speak, say [xx] Hi thank you for letting me speak today my [xx] municipalities we represent over 540 of state town, and cities many which provide water, wastewater and small matter services piping and all those services all members were opposed to section 11 of PCS because there were many non engineering issues that packed in in the system of decision on what type of performance piping materials used, local condition, the use of the pipe, maintenance and repair activities and cost of inventory. In addition there's a worry that with this legislation if there was a preference that the engineer decided that it would be challenged and the legal standard for that challenge is unknown. What would be the remedy if they were found to fail to consider all material. We've heard that this on national legislation that's trying to be sort in many states and we actually have heard of any examples given we requested them files and ordinates in North Carolina that state the specific material and so we don't really know what coalition is trying to be fixed we have heard that this is being requested by the American Chemistry Council, whose members are plastic manufactures, and we've had from the statement North Carolina Department of environment and natural resources their for water systems based on local water plans they get, that over 2/3 of the pipe in the ground, the miles of pipes in the ground in the state are plastic for water systems, so again we don't exactly know what's trying to be fixed, so it our members preference that local conditions and requirements must be the primary factor when considering piping material on any municipal water, waste water, or storm water project, and that they would need to retain that ability to choose the piping material based on those local conditions and long term cost of maintenance, we've also heard from John Carr of the North Carolina raw water association he's unable to be in this committee me today but their organization is opposed to this and they gave me permission to share this concerns thank you so much. Next up Jadie Tholaman professional engineers of North Carolina. Thank you senator Brown, Jetty Solomon
professional engineer I'm speaking on behalf of professional engineers in North Carolina some of my spun of experience though I'm not speaking this on their behalf today but the American side is civil engineers I was the first President there, I'm member of the AWWA which is the association where the association where the water utilities are members who are also opposed to this, I'm also a member not speaking and also a member water the state water infrastructure authority which oversees the grants and the loans programs that comes in and what it does, from all those perspectives and on behalf of PNC I think senator Robinson had best to professional are already considering this issues, they are well documented local conditions do require different standards the AWWA had a good point and their legislation and I will say this from a state water and infrastructure authority too, we have to comply with national standards and so they may be local it reference the national standard that we include a product, but we have to do that to be in compliance with federal law and federal grants, and we also have to do it with good engineering practice on a local level I am not in person aware of any jurisdictions that are prohibition this product, I know a number of organisations including PNC have asked for that list to see whether this is happening and I can tell you that on behalf of PNC, we'll be glad to work with the particular pipe industry representative to figure that proud and make sure that right locally but we can not see where that is happening anywhere and would like, very much like to see where that is if that is indeed the truth is basically we, this is not something that needs to be done a State wide level, it's really over kill and it does set a price where we can start question all our architects and engineers for anything form buildings and any products and open up the law suits for any professional. So thank you very much. it's Esaveli[sp?] with the Carolina ATC. Good morning thank you Mr Chair, members of the committee, my name is Betsy Bailey and I represent Carolina's General Constructors we met with several other stake holders, some of them that had just spoken hear while this registration was being and crafted and we also agree with some of the previous comment in that we will never really given any examples of where this is occurring or where this is a problem and really so don't see a need for the local registration, we also belief that the engineer should be the one that decide what is the appropriate material to be used based on the project parameters and also will say there there is a problem with the little bit of the language that one engineer has quoted to me about the use of sound engineering practices that sound really good but in fact who defines what the sound engineering? Is that the engineer that sales the drawings or is that the owner and operator that gives preference to what works best for them under certain conditions so that another term within the language I think that that's problematic I will also reference the leagues point about how much piping PTC piping is already used in the mistake and it state there is already a super majority position on this type of material used in water system across the sate that's comes from empty diners water system local water supply point and I think that's fairly current data and then finally I will just add that we we have not seen again any need for the legislation to move forward we worked with it diligently we love to have some examples I don't know of local ordinate system that inhabit this but if there are examples out there that discriminate against this particular type of piping we'll be happy to look at those as well, thank you very much for your time. Senator Brigham Thank you Mr. Chairman in our conclusion of what I've just heard, Senator Wade would you be receptive to an amendment of removing this section. Senator Wade. Senator Brigham, I just talked with the bills sponsor to have this put in the regulatory reform bill and Senator Sanderson has agreed at this point to remove it from the bill and then see if we can get an amendment that might be agreeable to everybody before it goes to the floor. Okay, Senator Brigham you want sent forth that amendment. Yeah, that be it be fine if someone from Jefer just to. Wow, I tell you we have some fantastic staff that already there. Imagine that. So we haven't been contacted Is it dated yesterday? I think it was dated in 2013.
I'll just read the amendments, it's fairly simple send forth, Senator Bingham moves to amend the bill on page 8 line 43 through page 9 line 17 by deleting those lines, which takes out that section Any questions on the amendment? All those in favor will say I, 'I' Votes no, the I's have it. That section is now removed. Senator Wade this is how the question that chairman we need, Senate. Starting with section two, I was wondering if the bill sponsor or staff could just give us an example of the situation in which this would apply Senator Jackson, section two Yes section two. Senator Ray. What you are referring to is there is some cities that want to enforce a voluntary state regulation and make it mandatory requirement in all this if it's a voluntary at the state level the it's voluntary at the city level and it will not going to make that of ordinance if it's voluntary at state level. Follow up. I guess that I'm just asking for an example because that sounds like the type of obsession that could be narrowing score for very broaden score is this particular problem that we are trying to solve with the instance? Senator Ray. Not any that I have been told about, but of course this bill contains lots of registration from other senators and members of the house so I don't know to be specific so what I was putting there for. I understand new question? New question. With respect to section eight and is similar question just to extend and debate the bill this is the beehive section so we would prevent a article from city or county for adapting an ordinance that prohibits a person from owning five or fewer beehives so I represent up town shower, if shower want to pass the ordinance and no one within the high rise can posses five or fewer beehives that may be prohibited from doing that under the section. Senator Wade? That's what I understand, is that correct Stan? Yes madam in that scenario the city of Charlotte would be for every prominent adopted in the ordinates. Follow up? It seems like it will be a pretty reasonable ordinates but just through it out there the next question on sections 13 an 14 its kind of like walking me though what we are doing here am not an expert in riparian either and I would like appreciate a little liberation on the effect of this sections Mr chairman may you update this section? Certainly yes thank you section 13 this is the sections that relates to the top pen and new birth rules so this rule in active birth management commission in the effective of august 1st 2000 for both of them worth section thirteen and it creates essentially an exception or a grandfather and this is on the top of page ten from those rules for properties that are basically private properties and I plated and recorded in registration deeds in according to where the property are located prier to august 1st 2000 basically if this properties were plated and recorded in the registry of deeds, prior to this rules becoming effective then the buffer requirement wouldn't apply to those properties there already some exemptions in the rules themselves, this just create some additional exemptions from the rules, so that essentially what section 13 does section 14 is about how you measure the buffers, so there is typically 50 foot buffers. How you measure the buffers from coast to wetlands, and marsh lands. I believe right now those are often entitled, so I believe the way the department from the apartment is here. Measures[sp?] [xx] is from extend of the title activities so if the high tide mark for instance when you wind tides have brought in more water, so we've more extensive water body so the measures from the edges is that water. This would say that you go back to the normal high water mark for your measurement and so, essentially part of the coastal marshland could be part of the buffer rather than the entire coastal [xx] under marsh land being protected by the [xx].
Follow up. Well I'm not going to sit here and tell you I got all of that but I appreciate your effort. Next question is on section 17, my understanding is that their is some problems where plans are being, designs are being approved and then inspectors are coming in and basically changing what they want to have a happen and it's requiring builders to go back and constantly make provisions and I'm not sure this section is trying to fix that problem or not so I would appreciate a little elaboration as to what problem we're trying to solve here. section 17 staff, Erica. I believe the provision does not address the example that you gave Senator Jackson I think the provision is more about on the back end with the inspections of the completed building that right now the building inspector is required basically as part of their duty is and if I remember correctly the're guilty of a class one misnomer if they fail to do the inspection correctly with components part of the building that are completely over seen by the professional licence architect or engineer the provision would allow the building inspector to rely on the license proffessional's, inspection of the installation of that building component without violating their duty of office. Any other questions or comments? Senator Tucker Just to comment on that, Senator Jackson has done a lot already. They take the PE stamp and the responsibilities placed on the inspector comes in and sees the PE stamp and then has the subjective opinion that adds something else on over and above what the PE stamp. So, that's just trying to control that so it's not subject if it's within the law and when they had requirements from inspection, and reference to, and I think it's a good thing I know that Mecklenburg county sometimes is considered a strange place and so if there people in Mecklenburg county who wish to have beehives and candals I won't be able to restrict that, so Senator Wade based on senator Jackson's request or observation under section eight, if we could amend that when it gets to the floor that we are specific that the behalfs have to be placed on the ground as opposed to any other. Senator Tucker if you're worried about the bees getting involved in your H systems, you will have to rescue yourself. No I'm not. I'm trying to keep people that are citizens of Mecklenburg county from being stung by bees and [xx] honey bees. Honey bees rise. So if you'll be a minimal that senator Jackson and I will try to cut some language to amend it on the floor if you're okay with that Mr. Chair and sponsor. The chair is not alright with that. Someone needs to speak up for the honey bees and I'm here, so the honey bees has every right to live in the city Charlotte, they had t o fly along upon plant a tree around there, so if they want to put a beehive up there they will get all too tired before they get back to that higrise candol TO make some honey. The bill is before us. All those in favor as amended to the PCS, to the PCS as amended all in favorable to the original that was by senator Tucker, all those in favor will say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it We adjourn.